Petition to equalize QB prices of some similar WW2 tanks

[MikeyD]

The price jump between the rare basic M4A3 75 and M4A3 75 (wet stowage) is 40 points. The basic M4A3 retains the old pattern hull with armor quality ranked as mediocre, carries fewer rounds, and burns easily. So we can intuit where the extra points come from for M4A3w mid.

By Dec 44 in CMFB the M4 Mid has entirely dropped out of the TO&E.

[Bootie]

Hi Folks

Late to the topic on this one but just for clarity sake I would like to point out in reference to the thread title... this is not a petition from The FGM to equalize QB prices but more a petition from a number of players from The FGM... big difference. 

 

@RedWolf could you edit the title to reflect this please.  

[Redwolf]

2 minutes ago, Bootie said:

Hi Folks

Late to the topic on this one but just for clarity sake I would like to point out in reference to the thread title... this is not a petition from The FGM to equalize QB prices but more a petition from a number of players from The FGM... big difference. 

 

@RedWolf could you edit the title to reflect this please.  

Would love to, but the editing time has expired

[Artkin]

I thought everyone was a grown up here. 

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, Bootie said:

from a number of players from The FGM... big difference. 

Thank you. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

I am somewhat sympathetic to the petition but I don't know what could be done about it. BFC have been consistently hostile to subjective price adjustments and without access to the formula it's hard to say how the changes could be made without introducing cascading effects throughout the system.

Discounting turretless vehicles would help the StuG, JPz IV and JPz IV/70(A) which I think are all a little pricey for what you get, but then the Hetzer, JPz IV/70(V) and Jagdpanther would also benefit and I don't think they need it.

The accusation hurled at the Panzer IV is that its front turret armor is thin so perhaps increasing the weighting of front turret armor in the formula would help. But the Panther and IS-2 have even weaker turret armor relative to their hull armor and so would also go down in price while Tiger tanks would go up.

[Redwolf]

7 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I am somewhat sympathetic to the petition but I don't know what could be done about it. BFC have been consistently hostile to subjective price adjustments and without access to the formula it's hard to say how the changes could be made without introducing cascading effects throughout the system.

Discounting turretless vehicles would help the StuG, JPz IV and JPz IV/70(A) which I think are all a little pricey for what you get, but then the Hetzer, JPz IV/70(V) and Jagdpanther would also benefit and I don't think they need it.

The accusation hurled at the Panzer IV is that its front turret armor is thin so perhaps increasing the weighting of front turret armor in the formula would help. But the Panther and IS-2 have even weaker turret armor relative to their hull armor and so would also go down in price while Tiger tanks would go up.

All concerns that I share.

We should look at what the real difference between a Pz IZV/70 and a StuG is: a flawless front shield. Actually all the JdPz IV with 80mm front have it, and the Jagdpanther of course.

Not having access to the formula as-is I speculate that we can solve this by making front armor without weaknesses a little bit exponentially more expensive, as well as particularly thick front armor in general. That would reflect what these vehicles do in a Quickbattle. So Jagdpanther and Pz IV/70 go back up to where they are after going down for having no turret. King Tiger would go up from where it is now (no problem IMHO). Panther somewhere in between, a modest rise. Even most Shermans would go up a bit because they have no-weakness front armor compared to the Pz IV.

I like the idea of making some parts of the formula exponential at the upper end. So all the über stuff gets an extra price raise. Result? Less pressure for an arms race, more variety.

[Larsen]

Actually formula might be a good first approximation. After that we can just adjust the prices based on how the game feels. It's hard to describe the value of completely different pieces of armor in one, even complex, formula. And this comes from a very analytical guy, by the way.

For me it is absolutely clear that the prices of StuG and the price of the cheapest M4 are completely off compared to the other tanks/TDs. 

[Bulletpoint]

On 11/2/2021 at 5:38 AM, Vanir Ausf B said:

The accusation hurled at the Panzer IV is that its front turret armor is thin so perhaps increasing the weighting of front turret armor in the formula would help. But the Panther and IS-2 have even weaker turret armor relative to their hull armor and so would also go down in price while Tiger tanks would go up.

I agree with weighting turret front armour higher, as tanks are very often hit there. This is due to the game engine counting the tank as hull down quite easily - just abit of hedge or similar between the tank and the attacker will trigger partial hull down status and elevate the aim point. Also of course players naturally seek out hull down positions.

However, I think the weighting should be based on absolute turret thickness, rather than how thick the turret is compared to the hull. This would avoid strange effects for the Panther etc.

[chuckdyke]

As we are the customer we could expect a little more transparency of how the value is calculated. I think history also plays a role after all Germany produced a lot less AFV's than the allies.

[Pelican Pal]

IMO a lot of the niggling over why a vehicle is priced a certain way is missing the forest for the trees. I've played less WW2 QB than modern but a common problem when I played was that a competitive German list is chock full of Panthers and to a lesser extent Tigers. So as the German player you play nearly every match with Panthers and as an allied player you are dealing with Panthers in every match. Generally going outside of this window represents the German player intentionally sabotaging themselves.

So the question isn't really about the Sherman compared to the Stug or what have you. But the Stug compared to the Panther. The Panther is the best value-for-points in the list and making adjustments so that its not so core to the German armor would, imo, allow for some more variety in QBs that are also competitive.
 
 

[Redwolf]

7 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

IMO a lot of the niggling over why a vehicle is priced a certain way is missing the forest for the trees. I've played less WW2 QB than modern but a common problem when I played was that a competitive German list is chock full of Panthers and to a lesser extent Tigers. So as the German player you play nearly every match with Panthers and as an allied player you are dealing with Panthers in every match. Generally going outside of this window represents the German player intentionally sabotaging themselves.

So the question isn't really about the Sherman compared to the Stug or what have you. But the Stug compared to the Panther. The Panther is the best value-for-points in the list and making adjustments so that its not so core to the German armor would, imo, allow for some more variety in QBs that are also competitive.
 
 

Yes, this is a good turnaround view at the issue.

The only tanks that are zero rarity for the Germans are a Pz IV, a StuG and a Panther. The first two are overpriced, so what does the player do if they don't want to put themselves at a disadvantage compared to the Sherman hordes - either get a Panther, or get rare vehicles. Neither serves the purpose of historical gaming.

[Vanir Ausf B]

On 11/2/2021 at 6:53 AM, Redwolf said:

Not having access to the formula as-is I speculate that we can solve this by making front armor without weaknesses a little bit exponentially more expensive

Without weaknesses to what, exactly? The Panther tank is neigh invulnerable to US/UK 75mm and Russian 76mm but US/UK 76mm and Russian 85mm are a serious threat. Really, by late '44-'45 standards the Panther armor is mediocre except for it's awesome glacis plate. This speaks to @domfluff earlier point about the QB points system lacking context.

I am tempted to try inventing a points system formula that would satisfy the petition, mainly as a thought experiment. Unfortunately my math skills are average.

[Redwolf]

4 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Without weaknesses to what, exactly?

That was in the context of the late Pz IV, with its 50mm front turret. A flat plate at that. That is a real weakness that should affect price. The Panther does at least have a rounded mantlet, so statistically it isn't as affected. Having said that, I don't really mind if the Panther goes up or down a little. The most important issue to fix is the StuG.

[Artkin]

The panther being picked in every game is a good point. My friend and I were just talking about how many vehicles go unused for the Germans in CMRT. 

[Larsen]

I would find it weird if the formula compared the armor thickness for the same vehicle  at different points. Of course we can only speculate. The most intuitive approach would be to compare armor thickness of an AV to the penetration characteristics of the opposite side guns. 

And i don't think production numbers have anything to do with the point cost. After all we have rarity points for that.

[Freyberg]

The advantage the German AFVs have over budget Shermans is significant, but it's an advantage that mainly exists at longer ranges, which are more typical of tank engagements.

If you're unhappy with the balance of your QBs, perhaps you should choose more appropriate maps for your tank battles.

[chuckdyke]

22 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

it's an advantage that mainly exists at longer ranges

To be honest battles are not fought in typical tank friendly battlefields in North West Europe. Bocage in Normandy soggy soil during Market Garden. On top of that worse winter condition period 1944 - 1945. A platoon of Shermans vs a single German AFV is historically realistic. 

[Freyberg]

10 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

To be honest battles are not fought in typical tank friendly battlefields in North West Europe. Bocage in Normandy soggy soil during Market Garden. On top of that worse winter condition period 1944 - 1945. A platoon of Shermans vs a single German AFV is historically realistic. 

That's a fair comment, but the vehicle points-weighting is not map-specific, nor could it be.

Besides, in a bocage map, the Germans have a major infantry AT advantage, so it should kind of balance out.

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

Besides, in a bocage map, the Germans have a major infantry AT advantage, so it should kind of balance out.

Exactly I don't have a problem with the system. I go with historical accuracy, the Stug III was the most numerous AFV made by the Germans. For the transparency of the point system it is on BF to explain to its customers. I think the allies are attacking Germans defending. If the Germans counter attack it is done by Mark IV and Panthers. The point system could reflect this. The Stug III as it has no turret it is better employed in a defensive position. 

[Freyberg]

1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:

Exactly I don't have a problem with the system. I go with historical accuracy, the Stug III was the most numerous AFV made by the Germans. For the transparency of the point system it is on BF to explain to its customers. I think the allies are attacking Germans defending. If the Germans counter attack it is done by Mark IV and Panthers. The point system could reflect this. The Stug III as it has no turret it is better employed in a defensive position. 

I usually play Allies, attacking against the AI - I find all German tanks pretty lethal - you can't match them 1:1 even against the AI - and the Stug is right up there; it's a bitch 

[chuckdyke]

13 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

you can't match them 1:1 even against the AI - and the Stug is right up there; it's a bitch

1:1 is silly, make it as honest and fair like a bullfight in Spain. Attack a single tank with a platoon and attack a platoon with a company. Winning for me is not that important. Playing a tactical correct game is. Example is METT-TC the C stands for civilians we may ask it is not applicable in CM during WW2. It is! make sure your fire is directed towards identified military tactics. Shooting houses into rubble by positioning AFV's close by may set of triggers by the AI and some editors are very crafty with them. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Redwolf]

1 hour ago, Freyberg said:

The advantage the German AFVs have over budget Shermans is significant, but it's an advantage that mainly exists at longer ranges, which are more typical of tank engagements.

If you're unhappy with the balance of your QBs, perhaps you should choose more appropriate maps for your tank battles.

What would you say is a typical engagement range in CMx2? I can set up a little shootout for it.

To me it looks like it is too short to show a duel advantage for the Germans. And even if the range is longer - now the German shots start bouncing off the upper hull of the Sherman.

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

duel advantage

It is bad tactics to shoot at any tank from the front. For me Duel is just an other four letter word. 

[Redwolf]

Real tankers neither choose the "map" they are on nor the side the enemy tank shows them.